TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether, under Section 185 of the Indian Companies Act, the Court had jurisdiction to require the respondents to pay Rs. 11,39,400 to the official liquidator - specifically whether the respondents held the sale proceeds as trustees (express or constructive) for preference shareholders or as agents holding the funds for the company, and whether the company was prima facie entitled to the money.
Analysis: Section 185 provides a summary remedy to require a contributory, trustee, receiver, banker, agent or officer of the company to deliver any money or property in his hands to which the company is prima facie entitled after a winding up order. The agreement of 1 January 1950 contained proposals for a scheme which required shareholder and court sanction and therefore remained inchoate and non-operative until those formalities were completed. Until sanction and reduction of capital occurred, no proprietary rights vested in the proposed preference shareholders and the company remained the legal owner of the Ryam Sugar Company Ltd. shares and of the sale proceeds realized by their sale.
Analysis: The board resolution directing sale and placing the sale proceeds in the custody of the two respondents created, in the existing circumstances, a relationship of principal and agent rather than an express or constructive trust in favour of preference shareholders. The respondents held the proceeds as custodians/agents for the company pending the sanction of the scheme; as the scheme never ripened they continued to hold the funds for the company. Consequently the official liquidator was prima facie entitled to the return of the money under Section 185 and the summary procedure was available.
Conclusion: The respondents held the sale proceeds as agents for the company and the official liquidator was entitled under Section 185 to require delivery of Rs. 11,39,400 to the official liquidator; the appeal is allowed in favour of the appellant.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
